In which of the following cases it was held that the

Solution

In the case of Dr. Sunil Clifford Daniel v. State of Punjab (2012), the Supreme Court of India considered the interplay between Section 162 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. ldquo;A statement made by any person to a police officer in the course of an investigation done, if reduced to writing, be not signed by the person making it,rdquo; according to Section 162(1), which makes it clear that a statement made before the investigating officer must not be signed by the witness giving it. To put it another way, the witness will not be bound by the remarks he makes in front of the relevant authority. However, the provision of Section 162(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code will not apply to statements made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The Bombay High Court in light of the case of Bhimsha Subanna Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (1996) took into consideration the circumstances when independent evidence is not available to the Court to carry on with the conviction of the accused. In this present case, the Honrsquo;ble High Court while concluding that in the absence of independent evidence, the Court has to carefully examine evidence by the police witnesses which, if found to be a reliable source, will form the basis on which the conviction of the accused will exist. Thus, where assault weapons were discovered in line with the accused statement and no evidence existed which would reflect on the animosity that existed between the police inspector and the accused, it will be justified, and safe to believe the statement of the inspector which has been uncorroborated in respect of the weapon discovered. The recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mangala Waman Karandikar (D) TR. LRS. v.Prakash Damodar Ranad (2021) highlighted Sections 92, and 95 that deal with the exclusion of evidence of oral agreements and evidence as to document the meaning ofthe existing facts respectively. The issue before the Court concerned whether the provisions of Sections 92 and 95 apply to ambiguous documents or not. While observing that when the documentary terms of a contract are clear, Sections 92, and 95 will not be applicable, the Apex Court laid down the following points of determination; Contractual interpretations entirely depend on the intentions of the parties to the contract and the responsibility that exists on the part of the court is to provide the actual meaning that the interpretation holds. Judges Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose opined that the observations given by the High Court in this present case that amplifies Section 92 beyond its legislative intent stands as a violative fundamental tenant of lawful interpretation. This opinion was made on the basis of the case of Rohitash Kumar v. Om Prakash Sharma (2012). In Harichand vs State burden of proof of plea of alibi was discussed and it was held that the burden lies on the accused to prove the case of alibi.